Questions: Shouldn't an error thrown in .catch bubble up?

[mohsen1]

I see inconstancy in various implementation for this code snippet:

new Promise(function(resolve, reject) {
  resolve('ok');
})
.then(function(result) {
  throw new Error('boo!');
})
.catch(function(err) {
  throw new Error('hoo boy!');  // Throws in Chrome but nowhere else 
});

Chrome throws that "hoo boy!" error but it doesn't throw anywhere else (Node 4, Safari and Firefox)

[domenic]

Chrome does not throw that error. It logs it to the developer console, but does not throw it.

Since this isn't a spec bug, it might be better in the future to ask questions like this on Stack Overflow.

[mohsen1]

Is that error uncatchable per spec you mean?

[domenic]

There's no error at all. It's just like when you use sync XHR and it logs a warning. It's just a developer feature; it doesn't impact the semantics.

[mohsen1]

So if you throw in .then and .catch of a promise, the only way to to catch it is to use a .catch? I thought the error is going to bubble up and a global handler can catch it...

My assumpsion was based on the fact that most of async methods bubble up their unhanded errors. For example setTimeout:

window.onerror = function(err){ console.log('err ' + err) }

then

setTimeout(function() { throw new Error('hi')}) // prints "err Uncaught Error: hi"

[domenic]

You may be looking for whatwg/html#224 which is in progress.

[bergus]

@mohsen1 you can catch it either by chaining another .catch() to your promise or by listening for unhandledRejection events (see https://github.com/domenic/unhandled-rejections-browser-spec, https://github.com/promises-aplus/unhandled-rejections-spec)

[mohsen1]

Thanks for the links. Where can I read about why this way of handling the error is chosen over simply throwing the error in global context? With async/await we're going to use tons of try/catch blocks anyway...